Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Boundaries on God

Getting an Education)

I had long been aware that I felt different from many people, Christians included, in the fact that I did not struggle with the terrible suffering in this world combined with the belief in a powerful and loving God. Frankly, I was glad that I didn’t see a paradox in this and assumed that the paradox wasn’t even real. I assumed that people were distressed by this conundrum for purely emotional reasons, which would certainly be understandable, just not justifiable by logic or reason.

And, as I learned in my study of the matter, that assumption of mine is true for many individuals out there. Many don’t understand the very argument that they use, don’t recognize that it only applies in some contexts and not in others. There are also those who see that the Problem of Evil is only an argument against a very specific conception of God and reality, and I am very grateful to them for expanding my horizons so I could see what that conception was.

Yesterday I shared about faiths that bypass the argument entirely by not holding to the presuppositions that it depends on. Today I wanted to conclude by exploring some of the thoughts that came up when I imagined how it would be to live as one of those Christians to whom those presuppositions do still apply.

What Does All-Powerful Mean?)

At the root of everything, it comes down to just what we mean when we say that God is all-powerful and that He is sovereign over all. In most conversations, I find that even people who believe in the strongest conceptions of God’s power, still assume that to some degree He imposes restrictions upon Himself. They might say that God has the power to slam Jupiter into the Sun, causing a sudden burst of heat and energy that would consume the Earth and eradicate all life in an instant…but He doesn’t, because He is checked by His goodness and compassion. The fact that God does not do something, is not evidence that He cannot do something. It can merely be a sign that His nature bounds itself. God must wield all power, but not at the expense of being all-benevolent.

And then other attributes can be applied to that. Such as logic and truth. These are principles that exist on the same plane of existence as Him, and many Christians would argue are a part of Him, and as such He would operate according to their principles. Just as God would not show His power in a way that contradicts His benevolence, He would not show it in a way that contradicts His logic. If He did, He would be uncoupling His own parts and cease to be Himself.

Thus, could the suffering in this world be a logical necessity, even under the hands of an all-powerful and all-benevolent God?

Is God still all-powerful if that power is bounded by His benevolence and His logic? Is He still all-benevolent if that benevolence is bounded by His justice and His logic?

And if God does need to balance all of these criteria with one another, then perhaps there is space to say that a world of suffering, and a species of man who become heroic by overcoming great opposition, is a logical necessity. In our own lives we know that victory is only a virtue in the face of genuine possible defeat, and maybe that isn’t just an illusion of our reality, but an eternal principle, as true as the principles of mathematics. Perhaps life is the way that it is, because it was the only way that it could be.

This may not answer every concern found in the Problem of Evil, but I think it does open the door to deeper conversation.

In Conclusion)

In my last post I showed how certain faiths do not hold the same presuppositions that the Problem of Evil argument depends on, and which explains why I never found it to be a conundrum. Today I explored the experience of one who did assume those presuppositions, and what arguments could still allow for the existence of both suffering and God.

This brings me to the end of this study, and I have certainly learned a lot through the process. I now understand where the strength of the Problem of Evil argument resides, what presuppositions it depends on, and what my responses to it are, both with and without sharing those presuppositions. It has been helpful for me, and I hope it can be helpful for you, too.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Combinations of Presuppositions

Gaining an Understanding)

In my last post I explained how I never understood the Problem of Evil, which is the common argument that the suffering that we see in the world is logically incompatible with the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God. So, to comprehend this viewpoint better, I went to some online forums to discuss it with both atheists and Christians who see this argument as credible. It took a fair bit of time, and a lot of back and forth, but finally it made sense to me. I realized that the reason it never resonated with me, but did with others, was because we had a different set of presuppositions that entirely changed the context of how we view reality. Now, I still do not have those presuppositions, so the conclusion that the suffering of this world is incompatible with God still does not resonate with me, but I do understand why it would for others. I understand why it could very well resonate with me if I shared those same presuppositions.

As an aside, I think this is an important lesson in appreciating the different beliefs and struggles of others. Very often the conclusions that others draw seem so strange and incoherent to us, and by focusing on the conclusions, we usually just continue to confuse and frustrate one another. We have to get lower, down to the underlying premises that lead to those conclusions, the fundamental beliefs that make the position become sensible and rational.

But anyway, using the information I gained, I want to spell out exactly what the presuppositions are that would make suffering and God’s goodness hard to hold in the same mind, and in the next post I will show why a different set of presuppositions would not.

The Presuppositions)

The first presupposition we have already identified. It is that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent. He loves His children, He wants goodness and happiness in the world, and He has the power and knowledge to secure it.

But as we will see, this alone is not enough. There is one other necessary presupposition, and it is often overlooked. It is creation ex nihilo, the belief that God created the universe, all of its systems, and the human species, out of nothing. All of our reality is a closed box that God had full control over the designs of. All of the ways that this life is, are because God personally wanted them to be that way.

This second presupposition is key, because without it the obvious counterargument is that yes, God does want goodness and happiness, but in His infinite wisdom He knew that a fulness of joy could only be found in overcoming great trials. He did not only want His children to have peace, He wanted them to be heroes. He wanted them to choose righteousness even when it was hard. He wanted them to be driven by a love that could overcome any adversity.

But for the critic who believes that the existence of God assumes creation ex nihilo, this counterargument holds little weight. The critic can readily agree that yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that true depth of character is acquired only by suffering. Yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that greater good is obtained through temporary evil. But then…why is humanity of that nature? If the universe is a closed box that God designed every part of, then why design humanity to operate by those rules? Why not design a humanity that becomes heroic, and loving, and strong by just having nice things happen to them?

A Sensible Question)

With both of these presuppositions: an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God, combined with creation ex nihilo, I think that critique is very strong. I do not know that I can see any convincing argument against it. I have seen how other Christians try to refute it, and at the end of the day they seem to be trying to pry off one or the other of those presuppositions. And that’s fine if you don’t happen to agree entirely with them, but most of the Christians in these arguments do actually hold both as essential to their faith.

But not every Christian denomination does hold to these presuppositions, and certainly not every non-Christian denomination. There are faiths that are absent one or the other of these claims, including my own, and to us this Problem of Evil loses its power. We will examine that in more depth tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

What Really Matters

Often, that which we value most is not what we assume. The only way to know our true priorities is to observe what we compromise at the expense of what else.

Do we keep our belief in God’s commandments quiet when those around us oppose them? Then we value society more than God.

Do we pursue early sexual gratification, even though we know it will make us unattractive to a potential spouse? Then we value pleasure more than family.

Do we ignore our neighbor asking for help loading their truck so that we can have a nice evening to ourselves? Then we value self more than community.

And through it all, we may tell ourselves that God, family, and community matter to us most, but our actions reveal the truth of the matter. They do not. Social acceptance, pleasure, and self are our true priorities. But the good news is, our priorities can be altered, we just have to make sacrifices. Choose the commandments, the abstinence, the community service, even when we do not want them. In time, the heart will change so that we do.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 10:3-7

3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.

4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.

5 So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said.

6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled.

7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.

The loss of his sons must have been a terrible blow to Aaron, but wisely he accepted the Lord’s judgment and held his peace. The totality of God’s path is absolute. On the one hand, no one is forbidden from coming to Him, but also no one is excused from betraying Him. It does not matter our status, God’s laws apply just as much to the king as to the beggar, as much to the priest as to the pagan.

No doubt the weight of this reality rested on the minds of Aaron and his two surviving sons as Moses forbade them from performing the traditional rituals of mourning. It seems as though Nadab and Abihu’s betrayal took place sometime during the initiation process. The priests were staying in the sanctuary day and night for a full week, so there was plenty of opportunity for it to have occurred.

It was imperative that Aaron and his sons not abandon their purification process partway through. They were still acting in their divine office; they were still standing in as representatives of God, and it would not do for the representative of God to bewail the judgment of God. That would be contradictory.

Even so, Moses assured them that the people of Israel would mourn for them. Just as the priests must stand as representatives of God to the people, the people would stand as representatives of the brokenhearted men to God.

Aaron and his sons accepted their solemn duty, and “did according to the word of Moses.” Each of them would fulfill this initiation, commit themselves sincerely, and live out the rest of their lives without causing such a breach as Nadab and Abihu had done.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Devilish Deflection

Anything that follows these statements is devilish and designed to harm mankind.

  • “Yes, I know that’s the commandment, but…”
  • “Yes, that is true, but…”
  • “Yes, that’s what the scriptures say, but…”

Whatever the following justification is, it probably sounds very nice, though. It probably invokes certain virtues. But it is still authored by Satan. For anything that would excuse against God’s word cannot be of God. Anything that would justify sin has to be of the Devil.

And given our particular upbringing, that might be hard to accept. We may have been indoctrinated by our society such that we cannot see God’s word as being for the best, and yet in the full perspective of things it always will be. And the excuses that takes us away from His word might sound for the best, but in the full perspective of things they will always cause pain and suffering.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 9:23-24

23 And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people.

24 And there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.

Here we have the only private moment in the ritual, where Moses and Aaron enter into the tabernacle and disappear from the view of all of Israel. Not only was it not seen what transpired in there, it isn’t described in the instructions given to Moses for this moment. At the very least, it seems likely that Moses and Aaron would have gone through the inner-tabernacle rituals, such as lighting the lamps, burning incense, arranging the shewbread, and sprinkling blood. Did Aaron also commune with God directly? Did he speak with God face to face, as Moses had? We do not know. This moment has been kept private from all the world, just as our most sacred moments are typically kept private.

We do know that after they emerged, God responded in a grand show of divine approval. A heavenly flame went forth and consumed the offerings upon the altar. A few chapters ago we heard that the flame of the altar was never to go out. Fresh fuel had to be added to it in perpetuity. It seems that the flame that they had to keep burning was this same divine flame! This is obviously symbolic of the divine flame that lives in each of us, put in us by the grace of Christ, but which must be regularly nourished.

The significance of this miraculous flame is clear. When the Israelites had finished the construction of the tabernacle, the cloud of the Lord covered it and His presence claimed and accepted it. But that had just been the acceptance of the physical structure. Now God is accepting the priests and their labor. Thus, the body of the tabernacle and its soul are deemed acceptable to the Lord, and what transpired there would be imbued with His authority.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 8:18-21

18 And he brought the ram for the burnt offering: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram.

19 And he killed it; and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round about.

20 And he cut the ram into pieces; and Moses burnt the head, and the pieces, and the fat.

21 And he washed the inwards and the legs in water; and Moses burnt the whole ram upon the altar: it was a burnt sacrifice for a sweet savour, and an offering made by fire unto the Lord; as the Lord commanded Moses.

In our last post we had the sin offering as part of the consecration process of Aaron and his sons and priests, and today it is immediately followed by the burnt offering. Thus, the spiritual sequence for the priests was to first give up their sinful ways, and then to give their lives to God. Tomorrow will move on to the consecration offering, which completes the journey, and represents oneness and unity with God. That is the entire gospel journey in three simple steps.

And notice, that even though these rituals have been fulfilled in Christ, the underlying path still remains the same. Repentance for sin, surrender of self, and unity with God are still the path of discipleship even today. Not one jot or tittle has passed, only the manner in which we interface with that underlying pattern.

The ancient Israelites were not a people so different as we might think. We have more in common with them than not. And, most importantly, at the fundamental level we are identical. Just like them, we still are afflicted by sin. We still struggle to surrender our will to God. We still suffer from separation from the Almighty. We still need sacrifice, surrender, and grace to overcome those challenges. We are still God’s children, and He is still our Father. The path for us to follow has always been there, unchanged. The unique details of modern life are but surface periphery, meaningless vapor in the wind, while He remains a constant through it all.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 8:6-9

6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.

7 And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith.

8 And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.

9 And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre, even upon his forefront, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown; as the Lord commanded Moses.

We already discussed the symbolic elements for each individual piece of the priestly vesture when we first read about them in Exodus. Today let us consider the significance of clothing as a general rule. Clothing has always been a symbol for taking on an identity, for becoming someone. Wearing clothes is like putting on a second skin or entering into another person.

As pointed out in yesterday’s post, Aaron and his sons were officiating in the place of Moses, and by extension, of God. Thus, Moses was enclothing the priests with himself and with the Lord. When the priest performed in his office, personal failings or scruples with other Israelites would need to be set to the side. It wouldn’t matter what you thought of Aaron or what he thought of you, because Aaron wasn’t really the one leading you through the ritual, God was. And you were reminded of that fact by seeing Aaron in these godly clothes.

Another universal symbol of clothing is uniformity. When people wear exactly the same articles, as the priests did, that would further reinforce the notion that these were not individuals anymore. They were one and the same: God. There was no advantage to being serviced by this priest, rather than that one, because the same clothes, therefore the same identity, therefore the same God, was through it all.